Speaking of your film career, last month in GQ Bill Murray said something that wasn’t so nice about Ghostbusters 3.

Aykroyd: He was talking about the writers from Year One, and I think he was reacting to the box-office success and the general public view of the film, which in my view was a very serviceable comedy, and in the end I think they’ll make their money back. I think he was concerned that the writing on Ghostbusters 3 by these guys would not be up to standard, but I can tell you firsthand, I’m working on the script now and those two—Stupnitsky and Eisenberg, [writer-producers of The Office]—wrote Bill the comic role of a lifetime, and the new Ghostbusters and the old are all well represented in it…we have a strong first draft that Harold [Ramis] and I will take back, and I’m very excited about working on it.
Bill and Ted 3. Heathers 2. True Lies 2. Really?

Aykroyd: Look, Hollywood is in love with any kind of nostalgia that can prove itself to be commercial. But it has to evolve. Now [in Ghostbusters 3] my character’s eyesight is shot, I got a bad knee, a bad hip—I can’t drive that caddy anymore or lift that Psychotron Accelerator anymore, it’s too heavy. We need young legs, new minds—new Ghostbusters; so I’m in essence passing the torch to the new regime, and you know what? That’s totally okay with me.

Sounds like they are attempting to reboot it after all. I'll believe it when we're finally graced with a full trailer. Too many people have been talking about this for too long so we'll wait and see. I like how Dan says that the Office writers wrote Bill the comedic role of a life time! Bill didn't seem to think so!

Aykroyd tends to believe his own bullshit entirely too much. He's said "we're moving forward on Ghostbusters 3" about two dozen times over the last decade. (And if he thinks Year One was a "serviceable comedy," the man is even further gone than previously thought.) At this point, it's been so long since he or Ramis wrote anything good that there's no reason to trust any of their creative judgments anymore.

As for a new cast, anyone who didn't see that coming lives on a planet where crack grows on trees. That's been the approach ever since 1998. Sony wants a movie that can re-launch a franchise with a bunch of young, cheap stars, with 15 minutes of screen time for the old guard in order to lend the movie some credibility with fans of the original.

Keep in mind that no new Ghostbusters film can move forward without the approvals of Sony / Columbia, Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray and Ivan Reitman. Hopefully, this movie will never get made.

Aykroyd tends to believe his own bullshit entirely too much. He's said "we're moving forward on Ghostbusters 3" about two dozen times over the last decade. (And if he thinks Year One was a "serviceable comedy," the man is even further gone than previously thought.) At this point, it's been so long since he or Ramis wrote anything good that there's no reason to trust any of their creative judgments anymore.

As for a new cast, anyone who didn't see that coming lives on a planet where crack grows on trees. That's been the approach ever since 1998. Sony wants a movie that can re-launch a franchise with a bunch of young, cheap stars, with 15 minutes of screen time for the old guard in order to lend the movie some credibility with fans of the original.

Keep in mind that no new Ghostbusters film can move forward without the approvals of Sony / Columbia, Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray and Ivan Reitman. Hopefully, this movie will never get made.

As much as I would love a Ghostbusters 3, there has to be a point where you love something enough to let it go. Let it go, Dan. It will never again be what it was. Love and enjoy the first two films, and the video game, but this just isn't going to pan out well.

Oh, and Year One was utter dreck, and I say that as a huge fan of Jack Black.

As much as I would love a Ghostbusters 3, there has to be a point where you love something enough to let it go. Let it go, Dan. It will never again be what it was. Love and enjoy the first two films <snip>

Sadly, This movie needed to be made in the 90's to have any chance of credibility. The time has passed. I think a next-gen approach could be decent, but it could never be great. If average is the best you can achieve, why not do something new.

I was happy with the Ghostbusters video game though. That was a real treat for fans, and very well done.

What has Dan Aykroyd been doing lately anyway? I feel like I haven't seen him in years (since evolution I think). He's a very talented performer. I miss him.

Aykroyd tends to believe his own bullshit entirely too much. He's said "we're moving forward on Ghostbusters 3" about two dozen times over the last decade. (And if he thinks Year One was a "serviceable comedy," the man is even further gone than previously thought.) At this point, it's been so long since he or Ramis wrote anything good that there's no reason to trust any of their creative judgments anymore.

As for a new cast, anyone who didn't see that coming lives on a planet where crack grows on trees. That's been the approach ever since 1998. Sony wants a movie that can re-launch a franchise with a bunch of young, cheap stars, with 15 minutes of screen time for the old guard in order to lend the movie some credibility with fans of the original.

Keep in mind that no new Ghostbusters film can move forward without the approvals of Sony / Columbia, Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray and Ivan Reitman. Hopefully, this movie will never get made.

Click to expand...

"Serviceable" is quote for barely tolerable up to "it was shit" but that kind of remark is usually only uttered by people who want any kind of publicity by starting a public flamewar.. Aykroyd is too long in the business to know he doesn't need that kind of publicity.

While we as an audience has been burnt so many times by sequels i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Nothing has been shown to warrant any praise or derision and for some it will never be good simply because it's not been made in the late 80s/early 90s.

He's also The Ranger in the upcoming "Yogi Bear" movie this Christmas. As much as I would be intrigued by a GOOD "Ghostbuster's III" I just think there are too many hurdles in getting this flick out of development hell. A huge one is trying to impress Bill with a good script which I doubt would happen.

Aykroyd tends to believe his own bullshit entirely too much. He's said "we're moving forward on Ghostbusters 3" about two dozen times over the last decade. (And if he thinks Year One was a "serviceable comedy," the man is even further gone than previously thought.) At this point, it's been so long since he or Ramis wrote anything good that there's no reason to trust any of their creative judgments anymore.
.

Click to expand...

Oh my God! I had no idea they had anything to do with that smelly dog turd of a movie! I will not touch GB3 with a ten-foot pole.

I wanted to see Ghostbusters 3 but that was a long time ago and now every time I hear it, I think of Duke Nuke 'Em Forever... "we're working on it."

Of course now Duke is actually going to get released (well, more likely than ever before) but who knows if it will even be any good or be worth the wait. Ghostbusters 3 is much in the same boat. If it ever actually gets made, will it even be worth it?

Somehow I doubt it unless they do a full reboot and that reboot does the original duo justice. Not an easy task and I'm sure many fans will say it's impossible.

Year One was complete crap. The only time it was "funny" was when it was poking some fun at Biblical stories (Abraham's remarking that the circumcision look was "really going to catch on" was the funniest line in the whole movie) but most of the rest of the time was just really stupid, low brow, scat humor and "look at the flamboyantly gay Sodomites!" humor.